Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Hier diskutieren die Betatester von PhotoLine untereinander und mit den Entwicklern
User avatar
Gerhard Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon 18 Nov 2002 15:30
Location: Bad Gögging

Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by Gerhard Huber »

Hallo,

es gibt wieder eine neue Testversion 17.50b10.


Mac OS X:
http://www.pl32.net/beta/plx1750b10.zip

Windows:
http://www.pl32.net/beta/pl1750b10.zip


Neues:
- Plugin Dateiimport jetzt abgeschlossen
- diverse Kleinigkeiten


diverse Fehler behoben





Gerhard Huber [Computerinsel GmbH]
support@pl32.de - www.pl32.de
User avatar
OldRadioGuy
Mitglied
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 24 Apr 2009 19:09
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by OldRadioGuy »

New: File-> Import-> Digital Camera Raw Data

Here is a sample image rendered twice in PhotoLine 17.50B10 and then a comparison rendered in AfterShot Pro. The raw image was an Olympus ORF file, shot with an Olympus E-420.

The default PL settings in the raw development window:

Created 16-Bit Image (checked)
Automatic Color Correction (unchecked)
Use Camera White Point (checked)
Light Correction (Checked)
Interpolation: AHD Interpolation
Gamma: 2.10
Contrast: 52%
Color: 5600 K
Clip White: 0.0%
Clip Black 0.0%
Color: 2.0%
Color Profile: sRGB

I have two recommendations for labels listed above (English, Windows version).

The first "Color" should be changed to "Color Temperature." (AfterShot Pro produced a color temperature of 4826 K in its default rendering, by the way.)

The second "Color" label should be changed to "Color Saturation" or "Saturation" because that is what it adjusts. Move the slider all the way to the left and the image becomes black and white.

Missing is a control for Camera Exposure, by stops from -3 to +3. This would be helpful to photographers intending to produce an HDR image with a third-party product using a single exposure raw shot.

A slider lightening the shadows without impacting highlights and a slider darkening the highlights without a negative effect on the shadows would be a welcome addition.

Can settings for this image be saved and applied to other images in the same directory with similar exposures or does that have to be done in the Browser?

Does PL create an XMP sidecar file, preserving the final development settings before the image is exported? The previous method of opening a raw file directly in PL allowed saving the settings by saving as a native PL file.

My comparison images: the first is the default raw image opened in PhotoLine. (I continue to contend PhotoLine does not render ORF raw correctly. No other raw editor I've tried brings in OFR files this dark.) The second image is the PL rendering after adjustments were made to Gamma, Contrast and Clip White. My adjustments were conservative and the image still does not "pop off the screen." The third image is AfterShot Pro's default rendering of the same raw file. It's closer to the needed pop, sacrificing some blowout.

PL's default rendering of raw files (at least on ORF) is conservative, avoiding blowouts. That's good, but it requires more adjustments to obtain an optimum image.

The PL developers are to be commended for improvements in the development of raw files may not be that important, however. I suspect most photographers shooting raw are turning to so-called "non-destructive" editors like Adobe Lightroom, Corel AfterShot Pro and Cyberlink PhotoDirector for the first run at raw file processing because of speed, preservation of settings and shareable EXIF data. PhotoLine and other similar editors then get the external editor assignment to add final touches on some of these images.

What's more important for PhotoLine is to maintain the ability to provide the kind of tweaks in the photos enthusiast photographers need and to be able to run the external plugins they desire.

Bob
Comparison_1_PL_default.jpg
Comparison_2_PL_adjusted.jpg
Comparison_3_AfterShotPro_default.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
PhotoLine 23.xx | DxO PhotoLab 5 | ON1 Photo RAW 2022 | Various Third-Party Plugins | macOS 11.4 | iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) | Intel Core i7 @ 4.2 GHZ | 32 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 | Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB | E-M1markIII, PEN-F.
User avatar
NoSi
Betatester
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon 07 Jan 2008 19:52
Location: Birkenwerder / Berlin

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by NoSi »

Hello RadioGuy,

I am not really experienced with raw images. But you still can open raw images directly. Just do it. I have to admit, that there are differences in presentation of the image after loading. I think this depends on missing options of selecting camera correction or color profile, interpolation, a.s.o.. Maybe it should be possible, to offer this in the adjustment layer, that is presented after direct loading. I do not know, if this is possible, but I can understand, that you want to save your settings for later corrections.
import-load.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Screencasts zu Photoline: http://www.buoa.de • Win 10x64 / PL64, immer und ausschließlich die aktuellste Beta-Version.
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

OldRadioGuy wrote:Automatic Color Correction (unchecked)
You should at least check this if you don't have an icc profile for your camera. (However, I strongly suggest you try to find one for your camera or a similar one, and leave this option unchecked. Without a proper profile, my Nikon NEFs were just totally unusable, but ever since, I have nothing to complain about.) There's a corresponding option in Preferences -> File -> Raw which is used when you "open" your raw files.
OldRadioGuy wrote: A slider lightening the shadows without impacting highlights and a slider darkening the highlights without a negative effect on the shadows would be a welcome addition.
I suggest you use the newer "open" method instead of the older raw import and the usual highlight/shadow adjustment which is already there, or the Curves adjustment (my preference)
OldRadioGuy wrote: Can settings for this image be saved and applied to other images in the same directory with similar exposures or does that have to be done in the Browser?
In the adjustment layer created by "open", you could save the layer settings as an adjustment layer preset, but you'd have to apply the preset to each photo manually. The Import dialog also has presets. I don't think you can assign adjustments in the browser. Of course, you could write a simple action applying the adjustment layer settings to each raw file in a folder via Batch converting.
OldRadioGuy wrote:My comparison images: the first is the default raw image opened in PhotoLine. (I continue to contend PhotoLine does not render ORF raw correctly. No other raw editor I've tried brings in OFR files this dark.) The second image is the PL rendering after adjustments were made to Gamma, Contrast and Clip White. My adjustments were conservative and the image still does not "pop off the screen." The third image is AfterShot Pro's default rendering of the same raw file. It's closer to the needed pop, sacrificing some blowout.
As I wrote above, this is probably due to the missing camera profile (under Preferences -> Color Management -> Digital Camera). Just for curiosity, I have just assigned my Nikon camera profile to the first of your jpegs (and adjusted the colour temperature back from your 5600 K), and this is what I get:
streetcar.jpg
Looks like a step in the right direction to me.
OldRadioGuy wrote: The PL developers are to be commended for improvements in the development of raw files may not be that important, however. I suspect most photographers shooting raw are turning to so-called "non-destructive" editors like Adobe Lightroom, Corel AfterShot Pro and Cyberlink PhotoDirector for the first run at raw file processing because of speed, preservation of settings and shareable EXIF data. PhotoLine and other similar editors then get the external editor assignment to add final touches on some of these images.
Well, I think that the more recent way of opening raw files with an adjustment layer on top is basically the equivalent of the non-destructive raw editors. However, I think that it would be hard for PL to compete with today's raw converters because of the camera colour space problem which you have encountered, and because of the automatic lens corrections (depending on lens type, focal length and chosen f-stop, at least) which many raw converters now offer. To date, PL doesn't even have a non-destructive manual lens correction adjustment (lateral CAs, distorsion, vignetting, sharpening increasing towards the edges), let alone the possibility to choose the right presets depending on EXIF data. It's also too cumbersome to use raws from different cameras.

Cheers

Burkhard.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

NoSi wrote:I have to admit, that there are differences in presentation of the image after loading.
True, I also get different results. "Open" uses the settings in Preferences -> File -> Raw but in "Import", a "reset to defaults" doesn't reset the values to the corresponding values in the preferences but to something different. If I make sure that the corresponding settings in the preferences and in "Import" are the same, and the camera profile chosen in "Import" is the same as the one in Preferences -> Color Management -> Camera Profile, then I get (almost) identical results. "Almost" means that they slightly differ in exposure (correctable via the histogram adjustment) and in the highlight correction adjustment.

Cheers

Burkhard.
User avatar
OldRadioGuy
Mitglied
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 24 Apr 2009 19:09
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by OldRadioGuy »

NoSi wrote:Hello RadioGuy,

I am not really experienced with raw images. But you still can open raw images directly. Just do it.
NoSi, thanks for correcting my mistaken interpretation of the notes Gerhard sent with the new beta.

As you indicated, it's still possible to open raw images directly in PL, which is the best way to view and process raw with PhotoLine, in my opinion. The new option from the file menu is Import -> Digital Camera Data. I mistakenly selected the File Open -> option of Digital Camera Raw Image which showed only variations of DNG. After your post, I went to Open -> All Files and found my ORF raw images, just like they were earlier.

Here's PL's rendering of the same ORF file, using its default settings in various adjustment layers. It is very good, no camera profile needed! Why shouldn't the other inferior processes used by PL to develop raw be replaced by this procedure?
PL opened ORF image.jpg
The ORF file had two sidecar files created by other programs. To make certain PL was in no way relying on the sidecars, I copied the ORF file to a new empty folder, opened it in PL and got the same result shown above.

Thanks, again, NoSi, and thanks to you, Burkhard.

Bob
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
PhotoLine 23.xx | DxO PhotoLab 5 | ON1 Photo RAW 2022 | Various Third-Party Plugins | macOS 11.4 | iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) | Intel Core i7 @ 4.2 GHZ | 32 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 | Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB | E-M1markIII, PEN-F.
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

OldRadioGuy wrote:As you indicated, it's still possible to open raw images directly in PL, which is the best way to view and process raw with PhotoLine, in my opinion. The new option from the file menu is Import -> Digital Camera Data.
I think that you are still mistaken - Import -> Digital Camera Raw Data is the older import function (which existed at least since I started using PL two years ago), and the import using an adjustment layer is more recent. (Gerhard's remark about support for import filters refers to something else – afaik, this refers to some 3rd party plugins for reading certain HDR file formats.)
OldRadioGuy wrote:I mistakenly selected the File Open -> option of Digital Camera Raw Image which showed only variations of DNG. After your post, I went to Open -> All Files and found my ORF raw images, just like they were earlier.
That's probably a bug in PL,then, and ORF should be added to the list of raw format extensions.
OldRadioGuy wrote:Here's PL's rendering of the same ORF file, using its default settings in various adjustment layers. It is very good, no camera profile needed! Why shouldn't the other inferior processes used by PL to develop raw be replaced by this procedure?
I think that the Import function is still in PL mainly for backward compatibility, and because may be easier to use if you have to deal with several different cameras. Anyway, one should be able to get the same results with both methods.

Btw., in Preferences -> Browse -> Settings you can choose how to open raw files from the PL browser.

Cheers

Burkhard.
User avatar
OldRadioGuy
Mitglied
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri 24 Apr 2009 19:09
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by OldRadioGuy »

Re: Repairing Brush

When the Repairing Brush is selected, the Source Point is designated by Alt+Left Click of the mouse -- just like the Copybrush. That Source Point is designated by an "X." However, when the Repairing Brush is then moved across an area to be repaired, the "X" remains stationary even though the source point is actually moving. The "X" should move as in the Copybrush.

I'm curious. What is the internal operational difference between the Repairing Brush and the Copybrush? They seem to do the same thing.

And one other point for the English-language version -- If the Repairing Brush is labeled as two separate words, why not be consistent and label the Copybrush "Copy Brush?"

Bob
PhotoLine 23.xx | DxO PhotoLab 5 | ON1 Photo RAW 2022 | Various Third-Party Plugins | macOS 11.4 | iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) | Intel Core i7 @ 4.2 GHZ | 32 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 | Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB | E-M1markIII, PEN-F.
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

OldRadioGuy wrote:When the Repairing Brush is selected, the Source Point is designated by Alt+Left Click of the mouse -- just like the Copybrush. That Source Point is designated by an "X." However, when the Repairing Brush is then moved across an area to be repaired, the "X" remains stationary even though the source point is actually moving. The "X" should move as in the Copybrush.
The Copy Brush actually has two modes, depending on whether you click "keep distance" in the settings or not. If "keep distance" is unchecked, the source point stays in the same place, just like the repair brush. If "keep distance" is checked, then after the first paint operation, the source point continues to move with the brush, even if you stop painting. (Remember, the source point only shows where copying will start, but while painting, the source of the copy operation changes in both modes and also when using the repair brush.)
OldRadioGuy wrote:I'm curious. What is the internal operational difference between the Repairing Brush and the Copybrush? They seem to do the same thing.
The Copy Brush just copies, while the Repair Brush only copies the structure of the source while trying to adapt the colour to that of the area surrounding the destination. (For example, if you retouch the sky, it's enough to use one source point to fix blemishes all over the sky, retaining noise and/or grain patterns, without having to find a patch with the exact same colour.)

Cheers

Burkhard.
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

Wenn ich das Hilfsgitter einschalte und dann mit CMD-Maus ziehen die Pinselgröße ändere, springt der Pinselumriss entsprechend dem Hilfsgitter. Die Pinselgröße selbst lässt sich anscheinend weiter stufenlos einstellen. Tritt auch bei der 17.10 auf. Ich nehme mal an, der Pinsel soll sich eigentlich nicht am Hilfsgitter orientieren?

L.G.

Burkhard.
User avatar
Hoogo
Betatester
Posts: 3914
Joined: Sun 03 Jul 2005 13:35
Location: Mülheim/Ruhr

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by Hoogo »

Mir ist aufgefallen, daß PL beim Umwandeln einer Ebene in 32Bit nun ein Farbprofil mit Gamma 1.0 zuweist.

Ausgangslage: 2 Ebenen ohne irgendein Profil.
Wandel ich die Hintergrundebene nach 32Bit, dann wird die Vordergrundebene zu hell dargestellt.
Wandel ich die Vordergrundebene nach 32Bit, bekomme ich starkes Banding in den dunklen Bereichen.
Und daß beim Zurückwandeln nach 8Bit das lineare Farbprofil beibehalten wird ist gar nicht gut, lineare 8Bit sind gar nicht lecker fürs Auge.
Da mag man zwar mit Profilkonvertierungen drumrum kommen und das mag irgendwie auch logisch sein, aber ich finde, so ein kleines Optionsfensterchen beim Umwandeln von/nach 32Bit wäre nicht schlecht.

Und ich hab da so eine Arbeitsebene "HDROptimizeWork" gefunden. Ist das schon irgendwas ansprechbares?
Martin Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3950
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2002 15:49

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by Martin Huber »

bkh wrote:Wenn ich das Hilfsgitter einschalte und dann mit CMD-Maus ziehen die Pinselgröße ändere, springt der Pinselumriss entsprechend dem Hilfsgitter. Die Pinselgröße selbst lässt sich anscheinend weiter stufenlos einstellen. Tritt auch bei der 17.10 auf.
Das werde ich ändern.

Martin
bkh
Betatester
Posts: 3661
Joined: Thu 26 Nov 2009 22:59

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by bkh »

Hoogo wrote:Mir ist aufgefallen, daß PL beim Umwandeln einer Ebene in 32Bit nun ein Farbprofil mit Gamma 1.0 zuweist.
Gefällt mir als Standardverhalten auch nicht so gut. Vor allem, weil sich Verrechnungsmodi und Arbeitsebenen bei Gamma 1.0 ganz anders verhalten als bei Gamma 2.2. Bei Tonwertkorrektur und Gradation z. B. wandert das mittlere Grau ziemlich weit nach links, und die dunklen Stellen lassen sich noch schlechter bearbeiten.

Ich sehe auch keinen Grund dafür, bei der Umwandlung von 8/16 bit ein Farbprofil zuzuweisen. Das wäre höchstens notwendig, wenn unprofilierte 32 bit-Bilder standardmäßig sRGB/Gamma 1.0 haben, aber dann würde es doch reichen, beim Öffnen dieses Profil zuzuweisen? Oder alternativ unter Einstellungen -> Farbmanagement -> Standard ein zusätzliches Standardprofil für 32 bit-Bilder einfügen? Wenn unprofilierte Bilder Gamma 1.0 haben, könnte man dort dann sRGB (Gamma 1.0) auswählen, und ansonsten dasselbe Profil wie bei 8/16 bit RGB.

L.G.

Burkhard.
Martin Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3950
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2002 15:49

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by Martin Huber »

Hoogo wrote:Mir ist aufgefallen, daß PL beim Umwandeln einer Ebene in 32Bit nun ein Farbprofil mit Gamma 1.0 zuweist.

Ausgangslage: 2 Ebenen ohne irgendein Profil.
Wandel ich die Hintergrundebene nach 32Bit, dann wird die Vordergrundebene zu hell dargestellt.
Das war aber bisher in vielen anderen Fällen schon analog: Konvertierung der Hintergrundebene nach grau, Konvertierung nur der Hintergrundebene mit einem Farbprofil, …
Was wäre eine bessere Alternative?
Hoogo wrote:Wandel ich die Vordergrundebene nach 32Bit, bekomme ich starkes Banding in den dunklen Bereichen.
Das werde ich reparieren.
Hoogo wrote:Und daß beim Zurückwandeln nach 8Bit das lineare Farbprofil beibehalten wird ist gar nicht gut, lineare 8Bit sind gar nicht lecker fürs Auge.
Das nenne ich Pech. Dieses Problem tritt nicht nur bei linearem Gamma auf sondern auch bei bei größeren Farbräumen (ProPhoto, Wide Gamut). Ich habe gerade eine ältere Photoshop-Version ausprobiert, und die arbeitet genauso.
Manchmal muss der Benutzer einfach wissen, was er macht.
Hoogo wrote:Da mag man zwar mit Profilkonvertierungen drumrum kommen und das mag irgendwie auch logisch sein, aber ich finde, so ein kleines Optionsfensterchen beim Umwandeln von/nach 32Bit wäre nicht schlecht.
Was sollte da drin sein? Wäre das dann nicht im Endeffekt eine weitere "Mit Farbprofil konvertieren"-Funktion?
Hoogo wrote:Und ich hab da so eine Arbeitsebene "HDROptimizeWork" gefunden. Ist das schon irgendwas ansprechbares?
Das wird mal eine Funktion, um 32-Bit-Daten zu skalieren/verschieben, die also nicht tabellenorientiert arbeitet und (in 32-Bit) also quasi-verlustfrei arbeitet. Sie ist aber noch in einer sehr frühe Phase.

Martin
Martin Huber
Entwickler
Entwickler
Posts: 3950
Joined: Tue 19 Nov 2002 15:49

Re: Neue Testversion 17.50b10

Post by Martin Huber »

bkh wrote:
Hoogo wrote:Mir ist aufgefallen, daß PL beim Umwandeln einer Ebene in 32Bit nun ein Farbprofil mit Gamma 1.0 zuweist.
Gefällt mir als Standardverhalten auch nicht so gut. Vor allem, weil sich Verrechnungsmodi und Arbeitsebenen bei Gamma 1.0 ganz anders verhalten als bei Gamma 2.2. Bei Tonwertkorrektur und Gradation z. B. wandert das mittlere Grau ziemlich weit nach links, und die dunklen Stellen lassen sich noch schlechter bearbeiten.
Momentan haben wir recht wenige 32-Bit-Dateien zur Verfügung, wenn also jemand Links zu Sample-Files (sei es TIFF, PSD oder EXR) von möglichst vielen verschiedenen Programmen hat, sind die sehr willkommen.

Bei den Dateien, die wir haben, ist lineares Gamma der Standard. Oft haben sie kein Farbprofil eingebettet und manchmal ein falsches (obwohl die Daten linear sind, hat das Profil ein Gamma ungleich 1).

Auf dieser Basis tun wir uns natürlich etwas hart, ein sinnvolle Entscheidung zu fällen, aber mit dem momentanen Datenbestand, den wir haben, ist die automatische Konvertierung nach linear die Lösung, die am wenigsten Probleme verspricht.

Martin